Non-Tokers Only: If Marijuana Were Legalized in your State, Would You (2 Viewers)

[Statorama]

I'm pretty weirded out by people who are sufficiently deterred merely by pot's illegality.

Eh, it's the same crowd that would rather download a song for 99 cents rather than rip it for free off the net.

 

[flapgreen]

I'm pretty weirded out by people who are sufficiently deterred merely by pot's illegality.

Eh, it's the same crowd that would rather download a song for 99 cents rather than rip it for free off the net.

But it's legal!

 

[cstu]

Nah. Did enough when I was younger. Agreed that it's weird anyone who has never smoked it would try it now. That's odd

Not really, the quality where I lived (Iowa) was trash growing up - nothing like say Northern Lights.

 

[NutterButter]

Nah. Did enough when I was younger. Agreed that it's weird anyone who has never smoked it would try it now. That's odd

Not really, the quality where I lived (Iowa) was trash growing up - nothing like say Northern Lights.

Even if you had access to that quality which most didn't, who would drop that kind of coin on it. Now, that's all you'd be smoking.

 

[Tom Servo]

I've never smoked it and I'm 50...don't really have any desire to start even if PA made it legal.

 

[phrozen]

I have never smoked weed and wouldn't if it were legal. FTR, I support legalization of marijuana in all states

 

[Despyzer]

There are a lot of things that are legal for me to do that I do not indulge in; golf comes to mind. There are things that I do that I know are illegal that I do anyways, like speed and pirate music. If I really wanted to murder someone or smoke marijuana, the legality probably wouldn't hold me back. Likewise, making those two activities legal wouldn't provide sufficient impetus to get me to partake in them, under normal circumstances.

 

[urbanhack]

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Absolutely, if for no other reason than it would healthier than drinking.

 

[Gawain]

Yeah, I echo several others thoughts.

It's not the illegality, it's the inconvenience. My desire to smoke pot every now and then isn't greater than my desire not to have to try to go to a bar to find someone who sells, ask around like some sort of loner or ask every eighteen-year old outside of the local Hess station. Now, if there was somewhere I could stop on my way home from work, akin to picking up a six pack...easily.

 

[Zow]

I'm pretty weirded out by people who are sufficiently deterred merely by pot's illegality.

Eh, it's the same crowd that would rather download a song for 99 cents rather than rip it for free off the net.

Besides the fact that people have gone to prison for merely possessing it.

 

[Maelstrom]

in the beginning i think some would try that don't usually smoke, but in the long run those that don't smoke wouldn't and those that already do still would.

The legality of weed probably has zero effect on the % of those that will end up smoking it.

I think there's a reasonable number of people who don't do stuff solely because it's illegal and the only way to engage in the behavior is the hang out with shady weirdos. I fall in that camp.

I'm pretty weirded out by people who are sufficiently deterred merely by pot's illegality.

If you're a working your way up the professional ladder, and especially if you have a family to boot, then the risk doesn't outweigh the reward. As a psoter in the other thread pointed out if he were intervieiwing candidates for a job and one of them had a marijuana arrest on their record then that person wouldn't be hired in main part becasue of the eveidence of poor decison making.

I'm pretty weirded out by people who are sufficiently deterred merely by pot's illegality.

I don't think it's surprising at all. I love Bourbon. But if I had to contact some shady contact to get bourbon and then risk (no matter how small a risk) getting arrested every time I get bourbon, I wouldn't do it. Heck, I probably wouldn't drink bourbon if I had to drive 10 miles to get it. It's not a moral qualm, it's simply a matter of not wanting to deal with the hassle.

These reasons. I've had access to connections if I felt like asking, but never inquired further. The one time I tried it, it did nothing (just a single hit on a pipe at a party where I was already drinking). If it was legal and easily accessible, I'd probably try it again in different circumstances, and could see myself going that route rather than a few beers while watching football/playing games on the weekend.

 

[Wingnut]

Nope. Not worth possibly losing my job if they tested me

 

[flysack]

Hey now, New Yorkers. Progress?

 

[Arizona Ron]

I'm pretty weirded out by people who are sufficiently deterred merely by pot's illegality.

The threat of losing my income keeps me deterred.

If it were 100% legal, including on a Federal level, I would smoke.

You are a cashier at wal-mart. What do you have to lose?

You say this based on what (other than your failed attempt at being funny)?

 

[Steve Tasker]

There are a lot of things that are legal for me to do that I do not indulge in; golf comes to mind. There are things that I do that I know are illegal that I do anyways, like speed and pirate music. If I really wanted to murder someone or smoke marijuana, the legality probably wouldn't hold me back. Likewise, making those two activities legal wouldn't provide sufficient impetus to get me to partake in them, under normal circumstances.

I read this and was all "wait, you do speed but you won't smoke marijuana??" Took me a second.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Hey now, New Yorkers. Progress?

Not nearly liberal enough in this regard.

 

[Gopher State]

Not interested in smoking it, but I have no problems with it being legal, as long it is taxed at the same rates cigs are which is between 35-50 percent, depending on your state

 

[Christo]

Not interested in smoking it, but I have no problems with it being legal, as long it is taxed at the same rates cigs are which is between 35-50 percent, depending on your state

I'm sure it will be. But why would you care?

 

[NutterButter]

Hey now, New Yorkers. Progress?

I need Cuomo to become governor of NJ. We'd be legal in no time.

 

[EYLive]

I voted no, but it also depends on the cost. I'd rather spend my money on good food and traveling.

 

[tikigods]

We're on the verge of legalization. It's already decriminalized and I can drive to Quebec and smoke it, if I wanted to. I'm not a big fan of pot. Never really have been. Personally, I don't care if it's legalized but I would not partake in the smoking. To each his own.

 

[NutterButter]

I voted no, but it also depends on the cost. I'd rather spend my money on good food and traveling.

Weed compliments good food very nicely.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I don't believe that for a second. The main reason I don't smoke isn't because it's illegal but because most of the people I hang around with don't. As a result, I would have to go search it out. When I do run into it at a party, I always indulge. If I could pick up a dime bag on my way home across the street from where I get my booze I'd certainly add it into the rotation. While legalization won't cause everyone to start, I think there are a lot of people like me.

I'm in this boat.

Part of the problem for me is that because I don't smoke often, I never really know what I'm getting. Sometimes it makes me feel happy and relaxed, sometimes I feel like Louis CK in the video. If I could buy it at the store eventually I'd zero in on the strains I like and stick to them.

 

[seahawk 17]

It's a great question. I live in a state where it's legal and I have not had a desire to smoke any. I have plenty of neighbors and friends that openly smoke outside, and will offer a hit and I have declined.

With all that being said, retail stores will be opening this spring and I am going to most likely try it... just for the experience and the fact that in a small way I am contributing to making history.

No you won't.

I will now.

 

[RJS113]

Up until about a week ago, I would smoke every single night, mainly to help me fall asleep. (I've been taking Niquil instead every night since, but know that's not a long term solution).

The reason I've stopped, and don't plan on smoking anymore (at least for a while) is because lately I've been getting depressed whenever I'm high. Being high also makes me even more anti social than I already am.

I feel like if weed was legal, I'd have access to a large variety of strains, and would be able to find some that didn't give me those side effects.

Since I've only stopped smoking for a week, I don't think I can call myself a non-toker, so I didn't vote in the poll. But I definitely think I'd go back to smoking every night if it was legal. (But only because of the reason I mentioned. It being illegal definitely isn't a deterant for me).

 

[Judge Smails]

So I'm 51 and have never had a single hit of pot. Never. Most of my friends do, and at our 24 man golf tourneys and fantasy drafts it looks like a Bob Marley festival. I just never started after seeing drugs almost destroy our family growing up. 2 uncles died, one in our home. Heroin. So I was always against drugs and have never done any. Was afraid I'd like it, and to be honest many "stoners" I knew early on just were not productive or headed in a good direction. My attitude is changing though - I don't think there's much difference between alcohol and marijuana - whatever floats your boat. I know if had a medical condition, in pain, glaucoma or whatever I'd light up in a second. And some day I may anyway. Still think it's a bad idea for young kids though. If you're an adult and that's how you chill/unwind, go for it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think many of you guys are ignoring or underestimating the impact of edible pot. I think there's a huge market for it that's currently being woefully underserved. There are plenty of people I've met over the years who won't smoke or dislike smoking but are perfectly willing to eat a pot brownie. And bringing weed candy to a concert or ball game or picnic or whatever seems like such a no-brainer compared to drinking.

 

[tikigods]

I think many of you guys are ignoring or underestimating the impact of edible pot. I think there's a huge market for it that's currently being woefully underserved. There are plenty of people I've met over the years who won't smoke or dislike smoking but are perfectly willing to eat a pot brownie. And bringing weed candy to a concert or ball game or picnic or whatever seems like such a no-brainer compared to drinking.

Does eating pot cause the same paranoia effect that it can cause when smoking? Is it a different high?

 

[pollardsvision]

Yeah, I echo several others thoughts.

It's not the illegality, it's the inconvenience. My desire to smoke pot every now and then isn't greater than my desire not to have to try to go to a bar to find someone who sells, ask around like some sort of loner or ask every eighteen-year old outside of the local Hess station. Now, if there was somewhere I could stop on my way home from work, akin to picking up a six pack...easily.

Pretty much the same for me.

I think pot's great and wish I liked it more, but I don't. If legal, I'd probably smoke about once a month, instead of the once every 3-6 months or so now.

Most people I know smoke, so getting it wouldn't even be that inconvenient. When I smoke it's always with friends, and I haven't bought any since college. If it were up to me to go buy some, I'd never smoke at all. If it were legal, I'd buy some from time to time.

 

[Zow]

I think many of you guys are ignoring or underestimating the impact of edible pot. I think there's a huge market for it that's currently being woefully underserved. There are plenty of people I've met over the years who won't smoke or dislike smoking but are perfectly willing to eat a pot brownie. And bringing weed candy to a concert or ball game or picnic or whatever seems like such a no-brainer compared to drinking.

This is a good point. The friends I have with professional licenses, business licenses, or who work for the government in some fashion who choose to imbibe do so exclusively with edibles (mainly brownies from what I've seen). Whether that's because that's their genuine preference or because it makes it more difficult to be caught (generally a pipe or a brown filled with a "leafy green substance" will create PC, a brownie just makes an officer question one's diet) I don't know. But I could definitely see the former and it'd be my choice because brownies rule.

I'd also add that the clients/people I've known who ingest marijuana medically tend to do the edibles, too.

I still choose not to though even with edibles because of my state's draconian DUI laws. Would be pretty awesome though on a weekend to ingest some edibles and go play a leisurely 18 or sit 1-2 for a few hours.

 

[Zow]

I'm pretty weirded out by people who are sufficiently deterred merely by pot's illegality.

The threat of losing my income keeps me deterred.

If it were 100% legal, including on a Federal level, I would smoke.

You are a cashier at wal-mart. What do you have to lose?

You say this based on what (other than your failed attempt at being funny)?

I think is point is that those of us with jobs that pay well and are tough to attain are in the minority. The average job position either doesn't pay high enough to create a deterrent, doesn't carry the same collateral consequence for possession/positive UA, or if the job was loss the worker could probably find a similar position with similar pay within a short period of time. Therefore, you (and me for that matter) are the exception to Good Posting Judge's "rule" that people shouldn't be sufficiently deterred from smoking due to its illegality.

 

[msommer]

"I took bite of the brownie, but I did not swallow!"

 

[rascal]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

 

[Christo]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

 

[msommer]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

 

[Christo]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

 

[Flying V]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

You would forget where you left the key.

 

[Christo]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

You would forget where you left the key.

I'd keep it on one of those retractable cord thingies clipped to my tool belt.

 

[Zow]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

The problem is the half-life of active THC remains in the system a heck of a lot longer than alcohol. We also don't have the studies correlating the level of impairment to the percent/amount of THC in one's system. Since the desire for non-stoned workers is clear, I can't see how employers could adopt any policy which didn't sanction/punish for the presence of active THC in someone's system.

 

[Christo]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

The problem is the half-life of active THC remains in the system a heck of a lot longer than alcohol. We also don't have the studies correlating the level of impairment to the percent/amount of THC in one's system. Since the desire for non-stoned workers is clear, I can't see how employers could adopt any policy which didn't sanction/punish for the presence of active THC in someone's system.

I'd agree if we were just talking about jobs where public safety is an issue--pilots, bus drivers, construction workers. But even if there's a question about the half-life of THC, I don't see how an employer could justify punishing someone who pushes paper in a cubicle M-F for smoking a joint on Friday or Saturday night.

 

[Zow]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

The problem is the half-life of active THC remains in the system a heck of a lot longer than alcohol. We also don't have the studies correlating the level of impairment to the percent/amount of THC in one's system. Since the desire for non-stoned workers is clear, I can't see how employers could adopt any policy which didn't sanction/punish for the presence of active THC in someone's system.

I'd agree if we were just talking about jobs where public safety is an issue--pilots, bus drivers, construction workers. But even if there's a question about the half-life of THC, I don't see how an employer could justify punishing someone who pushes paper in a cubicle M-F for smoking a joint on Friday or Saturday night.

But the problem there is that presently we have no legitimate way in testing to determine if that joint was smoked Friday night or in the office parking lot before work Monday morning.

 

[Christo]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

The problem is the half-life of active THC remains in the system a heck of a lot longer than alcohol. We also don't have the studies correlating the level of impairment to the percent/amount of THC in one's system. Since the desire for non-stoned workers is clear, I can't see how employers could adopt any policy which didn't sanction/punish for the presence of active THC in someone's system.

I'd agree if we were just talking about jobs where public safety is an issue--pilots, bus drivers, construction workers. But even if there's a question about the half-life of THC, I don't see how an employer could justify punishing someone who pushes paper in a cubicle M-F for smoking a joint on Friday or Saturday night.

But the problem there is that presently we have no legitimate way in testing to determine if that joint was smoked Friday night or in the office parking lot before work Monday morning.

Other than talking to the guy.

 

[rascal]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

1) still illegal federally

2) job is in a manufacturing environment

 

[pollardsvision]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

The problem is the half-life of active THC remains in the system a heck of a lot longer than alcohol. We also don't have the studies correlating the level of impairment to the percent/amount of THC in one's system. Since the desire for non-stoned workers is clear, I can't see how employers could adopt any policy which didn't sanction/punish for the presence of active THC in someone's system.

I'd agree if we were just talking about jobs where public safety is an issue--pilots, bus drivers, construction workers. But even if there's a question about the half-life of THC, I don't see how an employer could justify punishing someone who pushes paper in a cubicle M-F for smoking a joint on Friday or Saturday night.

But the problem there is that presently we have no legitimate way in testing to determine if that joint was smoked Friday night or in the office parking lot before work Monday morning.

Other than talking to the guy.

Easy there. Now, you're just making too much sense.

 

[Zow]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

The problem is the half-life of active THC remains in the system a heck of a lot longer than alcohol. We also don't have the studies correlating the level of impairment to the percent/amount of THC in one's system. Since the desire for non-stoned workers is clear, I can't see how employers could adopt any policy which didn't sanction/punish for the presence of active THC in someone's system.

I'd agree if we were just talking about jobs where public safety is an issue--pilots, bus drivers, construction workers. But even if there's a question about the half-life of THC, I don't see how an employer could justify punishing someone who pushes paper in a cubicle M-F for smoking a joint on Friday or Saturday night.

But the problem there is that presently we have no legitimate way in testing to determine if that joint was smoked Friday night or in the office parking lot before work Monday morning.

Other than talking to the guy.

"So John, your last drug test came back positive for THC. 30 ng/ml. Were you smoking that morning or the weekend prior?"

You're nuts if you think he admits to smoking just prior to working. Given that drug tests are far from instantaneous, talking to the guy afterwards is useless.

 

[Christo]

If my employer eliminated it from random drug screenings, yes.

If pot was legalized, what would be the purpose of employers still screening for it?

Inability to operate heavy equipment comes to mind

Why would I be unable to operate heavy equipment if I had a joint a week ago?

The problem is the half-life of active THC remains in the system a heck of a lot longer than alcohol. We also don't have the studies correlating the level of impairment to the percent/amount of THC in one's system. Since the desire for non-stoned workers is clear, I can't see how employers could adopt any policy which didn't sanction/punish for the presence of active THC in someone's system.

I'd agree if we were just talking about jobs where public safety is an issue--pilots, bus drivers, construction workers. But even if there's a question about the half-life of THC, I don't see how an employer could justify punishing someone who pushes paper in a cubicle M-F for smoking a joint on Friday or Saturday night.

But the problem there is that presently we have no legitimate way in testing to determine if that joint was smoked Friday night or in the office parking lot before work Monday morning.

Other than talking to the guy.

"So John, your last drug test came back positive for THC. 30 ng/ml. Were you smoking that morning or the weekend prior?"

You're nuts if you think he admits to smoking just prior to working. Given that drug tests are far from instantaneous, talking to the guy afterwards is useless.

No, dummy. If you talk to him and it appears as if he's high you can give him a test based upon your suspicion. If he fails, you fire him.

 

[Zow]

I recognize that and that may work for small companies or positions of oversight. But since many companies randomly test, I'm assuming the spur of the moment plan isn't perfect.

 

[Christo]

I recognize that and that may work for small companies or positions of oversight. But since many companies randomly test, I'm assuming the spur of the moment plan isn't perfect.

I thought we were discussing why they shouldn't randomly test if pot is legalized.

 

[Zow]

Bc whether it is legalized has zero baring on whether a worker is stoned at work and becomes a liability.